Sorry, but I have to speak up
-
Beleif in God and Beleif in the Bible are two different things . If you accept that the Bible is not the word of God but a guidance , then all christian stories have an element of interpretation in them . The fundemental question is about God and not about any particular religion.After all , all the religions cannot be right can they ? Actually they can , all they require is for there to be more than one reality . Is it 7 dimensions that the string theorists are up to now ? Ain't nobody ever told you : There ain't no sanity clause .Groucho Marks
-
I find the biggest puzzle in where do you think? Ok, we think in our brains. Fine. But why does that have a sense of self? Why does that exists? You know your alive. Fine. But why? Nishant S wrote: It’s a sad reflection on the irrational nature of human beings that despite so much advances in our awareness of the universe, the majority of people on this planet believe in some kind of all powerful god or gods. No, I think it's just a constant search, and no matter what science comes up with there will always be more questions. The universe in some ways appears to be fractal like, the closer you look the more detail you get. Ok, we knew of atoms, and then we knew of protons, neutrons, electrons and then we knew of quarks and other sub-atomic particles... Maybe we can get to the bottom of it; maybe we can't. A belief in a god makes a lot of people happy (ok, it makes some people crazy and do stupid things, but I think in general it creates more peace and solace for people). I still puzzle most about where do you think? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
Paul Westcott wrote: The universe in some ways appears to be fractal like, the closer you look the more detail you get. Oh what a beautiful picture. :) Sometimes I also picture myself that the universe is like a russian doll. Maybe our universe is just part of a particle in an outer universe, which itself is just part of a particle in an outer universer, which itself.... [Runtime stack exceeded] Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
-
Christopher Lord wrote: I can not understand how a programmer can believe in an abrahamic god. And I can make the exact opposite statement that I can not believe a programmer does not believe in GOD. As stated several other times 'belief'. It is a choice. For me seeing how complex the universe is I can not believe it is a random uncontrolled occurrence and yours is just the opposite. Neither of us can provide proof to the other. A fall out of my belief is I also believe in absolute definitions of right and wrong. If you do not believe in a god then you have no such definitions to guide your life. With out those definitions right and wrong are relative and the acts of Sept 11 and the Nazis government are no more wrong than caring for the homeless and sick. This is just to give an example. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
A fall out of my belief is I also believe in absolute definitions of right and wrong. If you do not believe in a god then you have no such definitions to guide your life. I believe in right and wrong, but stand somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real.
-
Spot on Daniel. Fear of death will make an otherwise rational human beings believe in any old rubbish. Personally, if someone really, really believes in something, then more power to them - I am full of respect - the problem I have with religiion is the bigotry that it can bring out in people. It amazes me that someone can preach "peace and love for all - unless you're a homosexual, in which case you can burn in hell". Would Jesus of been a bigot? Of course not. Would Jesus have wanted homesexuals to burn in hell for all eternity? Don't make me laugh. Christianity has a decent value system which many people could do well to adhere to, but it has to be inclusive. We are all human beings, and whatever our beliefs, race, colour, gender, sexual persuasion, etc. we are all equal. I don't believe in God myself, but if I did, it would be an all-inclusive God. As long as people live their lifes being decent to those around them, helping others where possible, etc. then they deserve a place in any "heaven" that may or may not exist (hey, even an atheist like myself has to keep an open mind ;)).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Study the behavior of herd or pack animals. Thats basically what we , as humans, are. Our "value" system, as espoused by you above, is simply a set of unnatural restrictions placed on dominant invividuals to protect the "herd". It is not a natural law. It has, over the years, been codified into something called religion. Much like the "laws Of Robotics" in the famous SF series we have an underlying set of natural principals that , regardless of religion or ethnic background , determine our behavior. First and foremost is the preservation of species. Thats why men die protecting the women and childern. Thats why women protect their offspring with such ferocity. But it has other ramifications also. Anything that threatens the herd, or species, is subject to the same response. Homosexuality is such an item in that the homosexual individual cannot contribute to the preservation or propagation of the species and as such are biological dead ends. This is but one example. There are many more but I am tired of typing :) Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: all they require is for there to be more than one reality You've overlooked the fact that each religion claims their god created reality out of nothingness. Each also thinks their god is the one true god. These are still mutally exclusive. "The lives of these people are contingent on events; if things stop happening to them they will stop being." "Rock over London, rock over Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
Think for a moment on the dual nature of light. It behaves both as a particle and a wave. Depends on how you look at it. Many things can be different to each observer but still only have one reality. Unless you have a complete understanding of the system you cannot determine exclusivity at any level. This was proposed many years ago and is clearly defined by the uncertainty principle.Maybe God is like that. When you look at one thing you change another. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
CString s[6][12] char* buff[12][12]; Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
I find the biggest puzzle in where do you think? Ok, we think in our brains. Fine. But why does that have a sense of self? Why does that exists? You know your alive. Fine. But why? Nishant S wrote: It’s a sad reflection on the irrational nature of human beings that despite so much advances in our awareness of the universe, the majority of people on this planet believe in some kind of all powerful god or gods. No, I think it's just a constant search, and no matter what science comes up with there will always be more questions. The universe in some ways appears to be fractal like, the closer you look the more detail you get. Ok, we knew of atoms, and then we knew of protons, neutrons, electrons and then we knew of quarks and other sub-atomic particles... Maybe we can get to the bottom of it; maybe we can't. A belief in a god makes a lot of people happy (ok, it makes some people crazy and do stupid things, but I think in general it creates more peace and solace for people). I still puzzle most about where do you think? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
the closer you look the more detail you get. Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. No. The evidence IS there. Creationists just like to shut their eyes, cover their ears and say, "I can't hear you". I know because I was once a creationist and a Christian, but there is a lot of evidence for evolution. You just can't see it because creationists make a lot of noise and you get tied up in their arguments. As the latest issue of SciAm accurately put it, "massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination." 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense Yes, life has been tracked from simple cells (3.5 billion years ago) to the first multi-cellular organisms (600 million years ago) to homo sapiens (100,000 years ago). And if humans did not evolve from apes, why do we find humanlike-apelike creatures who become pregressively more human in the hundreds of thousands of years leading upto the emergence of homo sapiens? Yet, we never find these fossils anywhere else in the fossil record? If God's intention was to create humans, why does 83% of the history of life on earth contain only single-celled organisms, and why only the last 0.0028% of the history of life on earth contain ANY humans at all? Maybe a god somewhere created the Big Bang, but he certainly didn't seem to have in mind the creation of humans.
-
Christopher Lord wrote: so there is no reason to suspect the richer base language of the universe can not do the same Doesn't this lead to a little recursion? Somewhere there is a starting point. From what I gather, there are two choices...1: The big bang and evolution or 2: God. Taking the Big Bang theory: Who ignited it? What was there before that? Considering the odds...the next time someone piles some junk into the city junkyard you should expect a fully functional jumbo jet to emerge, fueled up, with a runway! Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. What choice is left: God! And I don't choose God solely on the fact that other options verge on the ridiculus either. We all have the right to accept God or reject God. Acceptance results in an eternity in His presence while rejection results in an eternity in His absence. I'm not going to hang around waiting on that jumbo jet! ed
Evolution: Nothing supports evolution. There are no fossil traces that support it. If it were true, we would have already tracked life from simple cells to man, but it isn't there. Surely you are joking ! Right. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
the closer you look the more detail you get. Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? I mean I'm not saying that we should give up trying, but just that the edges might get fuzzier and fuzzier... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... What I said about it being fractal just seems to have a ring of truth in my mind (but it might just be a warped mind!) Like looking at the mandlebrot set from a distance you have a nice easy to understand shape (like Neutons laws) but drill down and then you find that you have more pattern there than you thought (Relativity, Quantum...) As I said, it should disuade us from trying to understand it all, but I do think its impossible. But the search is the fun part... Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: With out those definitions right and wrong are relative and the acts of Sept 11 and the Nazis government are no more wrong than caring for the homeless and sick. This is just to give an example. That's ridiculous! I don't share your beliefs but still I do have some definitions of what is right or wrong. It's called common sense! And because I'm not a believer I do not have a problem deciding if caring for a homeless is a better thing than joining some Nazi party or some suicide bomber sect. All your commandments can pretty much be summed up as Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you. I don't need an imaginary god to figure that out.. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: That's ridiculous! I don't share your beliefs but still I do have some definitions of what is right or wrong. It's called common sense! But they are your definitions and relative (My point). Now my example just shows someone else disagrees with you on what is right. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
A fall out of my belief is I also believe in absolute definitions of right and wrong. If you do not believe in a god then you have no such definitions to guide your life. I believe in right and wrong, but stand somewhere between agnosticism and atheism. I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real.
Brit wrote: I don't believe that a higher being has to give us definitions of right and wrong in order for them to be real. I did not say your definition of right and wrong was not real. I said it was relative. My example just shows that once your definition of right and wrong is not fixed it opens up the case for others to have different standards. To be conscious that you are ignorant of the facts is a great step towards Knowledge. Benjamin Disraeli
-
Michael P Butler wrote: How can a being with these kind of powers let people go hungry, let children be abused by priests, cause death and destruction with earthquakes and floods etc Some people argue that these victims are not true christians and will thus not recieve the love of god. I argue that there are too many people arguing the argument above.. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Some people argue that these victims are not true christians and will thus not recieve the love of god. Ah so it's a protection racket, be a Christian otherwise you may have an "accident" :-D LOL, I've love. I now know where the term GodFather originates ;-) Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If not, we could always do some POKE's in order to straighten this mess out.. LOL. It's not easy though, one bad POKE and another black hole is created. :-D Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Actually it is just the opposite. The more you look the simplier it gets. At some level its almost homogenious with a single explanation . Thats the Holy Grail of physics. To find that explanation. But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? I mean I'm not saying that we should give up trying, but just that the edges might get fuzzier and fuzzier... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... What I said about it being fractal just seems to have a ring of truth in my mind (but it might just be a warped mind!) Like looking at the mandlebrot set from a distance you have a nice easy to understand shape (like Neutons laws) but drill down and then you find that you have more pattern there than you thought (Relativity, Quantum...) As I said, it should disuade us from trying to understand it all, but I do think its impossible. But the search is the fun part... Have fun, Paul Westcott.
But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? We won't know that till we find it :) Can't prove a negative.Etc... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... And all those particles are composed of quarks. So now the atom can be explained not in terms of protons etc.. but the fundemental particles. Life is simpiler that way. Besides that the beauty of something like E=MC^2 is that it demonstrates the fact that matter ( atoms etc.. ) and energy are one and the same thus balancing the whole universe to a determination of its energy state without considering matter and energy as seperate entities. Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... In reality Newtons laws were not simplier - they were wrong. And the faster you went the more wrong they got. Uncle Alberts little theory is, at its heart, much simplier than Sir Issacs . Its just that the math is rather esoteric and scary but the math is not the theory - its a definition - and as such is specialized. Even AE had to get help with the math. Anyone who has ever had to wrestle with tensor calculus will give a big AMEN here. A system that is fractal in nature can be explored in terms of chaos and/or game theory. I don't think that physics at the level of the Grand Unified Theory will behave like this. I think what we are missing is something so fundemental that when and if we ever find it its gonna be almost comical. You know one of them "Why didn't i think of that" things. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
But, like the real grail, is it impossible to find? We won't know that till we find it :) Can't prove a negative.Etc... Like going to the model with atoms made from protons, neutrons and electrons was simplier than having different types of fundamental elements, but then we have gone beyong that to quite a number of sub-atomic particles... And all those particles are composed of quarks. So now the atom can be explained not in terms of protons etc.. but the fundemental particles. Life is simpiler that way. Besides that the beauty of something like E=MC^2 is that it demonstrates the fact that matter ( atoms etc.. ) and energy are one and the same thus balancing the whole universe to a determination of its energy state without considering matter and energy as seperate entities. Neutons laws were simplier than when you get to high speeds or miniscules quantities... In reality Newtons laws were not simplier - they were wrong. And the faster you went the more wrong they got. Uncle Alberts little theory is, at its heart, much simplier than Sir Issacs . Its just that the math is rather esoteric and scary but the math is not the theory - its a definition - and as such is specialized. Even AE had to get help with the math. Anyone who has ever had to wrestle with tensor calculus will give a big AMEN here. A system that is fractal in nature can be explored in terms of chaos and/or game theory. I don't think that physics at the level of the Grand Unified Theory will behave like this. I think what we are missing is something so fundemental that when and if we ever find it its gonna be almost comical. You know one of them "Why didn't i think of that" things. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
But weren't there all kinds of problems (as in not nice like e=mc^2) when quantum and relativity were attempted to be reconciled with each other? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
-
But weren't there all kinds of problems (as in not nice like e=mc^2) when quantum and relativity were attempted to be reconciled with each other? Have fun, Paul Westcott.
As far as I know ( I am far removed from the field ) the reconciliation of relativistic and quantum physics is still an ongoing process. More and more however the problems are being seen not as disproving realativity but as proving Hiesenberg. With a bit of the strange quark being thrown in for flavor :). Things like fractional spin and charge, strings ,super strings, multiple demensions, make it seem esoteric but in many cases are just devices used to visualize the problem. Kinda like the diagrams you see of a black hole or a 4 demensional box. We can visualize a one,two or three dem. object pretty well as say a point, a line, a cube. But throw in a fourth and our mind has nothing to relate it too and then we come up with something a tesseract in order to "see" it. But it has no real validity other than conceptual. Any attempt to visualize a singularity ( black hole ) is of course silly as it has no shape or form but the human part of us wants it to have one so we give it one. Richard There is nothing in fiction as strange as what Mother Nature has put together Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
The universe is so big because God used a char[] array and forgot the NULL terminator. So most of the universe is just any old junk found in memory :-D Michael :-) Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority. - The Doctor
:laugh: But, if that's true, then we can really mess things up in other places by changing things in our universe. For example, if I clean my room, I've changed the state of the universe, which might lockup the universal computer. Maybe I shouldn't clean my room afterall.
-
Christian Graus wrote: The Bible says there are specific gifts that every Christian recieves from God, the first and foremost being the ability to speak in tongues, because in the Bible, that is what happens when someone becomes a Christian. Que? I thought speaking in tongues was an evil thingTM. Sonorked as well: 100.13197 jorgen FreeBSD is sexy.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I thought speaking in tongues was an evil thing Did you ? I guess you've been exposed to a traditional church 'having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof'. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002
-
Christian Graus wrote: I can't prove a thing. HE can. He never does though does he? In fact, aliens offer more proof they exist than "He" does. In fact, as time goes on, the lack of proof is more evidence that he probably doesn't exist, because the loving God we have heard of, couldn't possibly be ignorant to the suffering of his "children"? Yet suffer we do. Are we to believe he is simply biding his time in order to save the righteous and punish the wicked? How can anyone truly believe this? It's time mankind took responsibility for itself and stopped using religion as a crutch in times of need and an excuse for violence and persecution. "The folly of man is that he dreams of what he can never achieve rather than dream of what he can."
phykell wrote: He never does though does he? Yes, He does. He says 'these signs shall follow them that believe', and they do. Do not confuse the deadness of traditional churches who are far from God, with the absence of God Himself. phykell wrote: because the loving God we have heard of, couldn't possibly be ignorant to the suffering of his "children"? In fact His children are those who follow Him, not all mankind. It is mans choice to walk alone, or to follow Him. It's not His fault if you make bad choices. phykell wrote: Are we to believe he is simply biding his time in order to save the righteous and punish the wicked? The righteous are cared for NOW. The proof is to the individual and it is both tangible and rigidly defined in the Bible. That traditional religion does not teach this is itself a fulfilment of what the Bible says, and so no surprise, but that is what the Bible *does* say. phykell wrote: It's time mankind took responsibility for itself and stopped using religion as a crutch in times of need and an excuse for violence and persecution. Now this I agree with. Christianity is about taking responsibility of ones own actions an aligning them with what God says. It's not about feeling sorry for yourself, being inactive or inflicting hurt on people who disagree. Christian I am completely intolerant of stupidity. Stupidity is, of course, anything that doesn't conform to my way of thinking. - Jamie Hale - 29/05/2002 Half the reason people switch away from VB is to find out what actually goes on.. and then like me they find out that they weren't quite as good as they thought - they've been nannied. - Alex, 13 June 2002